Tyre dealer loses Customs case in Privy Council

A TYRE DEALER lost his appeal against the Attorney General and the Comptroller of Customs and Excise in the Privy Council yesterday because his case was filed too late. Carlton Rattansingh, legal personal representative of the estate of Joseph Rattansingh, had taken the AG and the Customs Chief Kanadhar Doopan to court over the seizure of 3,016 tyres. But the AG pleaded that Rattansingh’s case was statute-barred and dismissed the appeal. Rattansingh had lost his case before Justice Peter Jamadar on April 3, 2000. He appealed to the Court of Appeal which by a 2-1 majority, dismissed the appeal. Chief Justice Sat Sharma and Madame Justice Margot Warner agreed that the matter was statute-barred, while Justice Anthony Lucky dissented.

Dr Fenton Ramsahoye SC and Anand Ramlogan appeared for Rattansingh. The Privy Council comprised Lords Bingham, Steyn, Hope, Rodger, and Carswell. No oral evidence was called at the trial and there was no dispute on the facts. The tyres were imported into Trinidad by Farouke Warris who sold them to the late Joseph Rattansingh. Between July 17 and August 3, 1984, they were seized and detained by the Comptroller of Customs. The Comptroller notified Joseph Rattansingh of the seizure in a formal written notice dated October 15, 1984, advising him of his right to claim the goods by written notice within one month. By letter dated November 12, 1984, Rattansingh’s attorney gave notice of the claim. But the Comptroller did not take proceedings for the forfeiture and condemnation of the tyres. Neither did he notify Rattansingh of the grounds on which the goods had been seized.

According to Lord Bingham, “it seems clear that import licences relating to the goods were thought to have been forged.” Rattansingh and Warris were charged with conspiracy to defraud the Customs and Excise Department. On March 28, 1988, the charge of conspiracy was dismissed against both men. However, Warris was committed for trial on two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering forged documents. By letters dated July 27 and October 17, 1990, Rattansingh’s attorney wrote to the Comptroller requesting the return of the tyres. The letters were not answered. Rattansingh died on March 24, 1994 without getting back his tyres. His son Carlton, took up the fight. These charges came up before Justice Kenny Persad on February 10, 1998 when the prosecution were unable to proceed and the case was dismissed. On March 10, 1998, Carlton’s attorney wrote a letter demanding the return of the goods.

The Comptroller replied saying attempts were being made to locate the tyres and that he was liaising with the Office of the DPP regarding their release. Carlton Rattansingh relied on three grounds to seek to overcome the problem posed by the statutory bar. First, it was said that the prosecuting authorities had been entitled to retain the tyres in 1990 as evidence against Warris. This submission was abandoned. Secondly, it was said that the prosecuting authorities had been entitled to detain the tyres pending the trial of Warris on forgery charges. This ground was also abandoned.  Thirdly, it was said that Rattansingh was entitled to rely on constitutional relief, but this argument was not made before the trial judge and the Court of Appeal.

“Only exceptionally would the Board consider it right to entertain a claim for constitutional relief on which the domestic courts had had no opportunity to pronounce, and there is nothing exceptional in this instance,” Lord Bingham added. Dr Ramsahoye invoked the hardship of Rattansingh losing property of very considerable value to the advantage of the State. Lord Bingham said the Board was sympathetic to this plea, but they were there to deal with the question of law.